1991 (2) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules late Kambi Revappa's will doesn't create a partition scheme, favors tax authorities.

The court determined that the will left by late Kambi Revappa, which allocated properties equally to his sons, did not constitute a scheme of partition. ... HUF Issues Involved:1. Whether the will left by the late Kambi Revappa, allotting his properties equally to his sons, was in fact a scheme of partitionRs.2. Whether the properties comprised in the will dated September 12, 1948, executed by the late Kambi Revappa allotted to Sri K. R. Nanjappa were for and on behalf of his family consisting of himself, his wife, and childrenRs.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Scheme of PartitionThe court examined whether the will executed by late Kambi Revappa, which allotted his properties equally to his sons, constituted a scheme of partition. The applicant, the wife of late K. R. Nanjappa, argued that the properties should be assessed as belonging to the Hindu undivided family (HUF) of Nanjappa, especially after a purported partition on November 4, 1974. However, the Income-tax Officer and Wealth-tax Officer did not accept this claim, assessing the properties as individual assets of Nanjappa. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also rejected the contention, noting that the properties bequeathed by the will were primarily self-acquired, not ancestral, and that Nanjappa had no children at the time of the will's execution. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the properties were managed by Nanjappa's brothers due to his ill-health and were consistently assessed as individual properties from 1950-51 to 1974-75. The court concluded that the will did not intend to partition the properties among the family but rather allotted them to Nanjappa in his individual capacity. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in C. N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar, which emphasized the importance of the donor's intention in determining the nature of the property.Issue 2: Properties for and on Behalf of the FamilyThe second issue was whether the properties allotted to Nanjappa under the will were for and on behalf of his family. The Tribunal found that the properties were not held by Nanjappa as the karta of the family, as he had no son at the time of the will's execution. The will directed that the properties should not be sold and should be managed by Nanjappa's brothers due to his ill-health, indicating an intention for individual rather than family ownership. The court noted that Nanjappa filed returns as an individual from 1950-51 onwards, and the status of HUF was only claimed in the assessment year 1966-67, which was not accepted. The court also referenced the decision in CIT v. M. K. Stremann, which dealt with the blending of self-acquired properties with ancestral properties, a factor absent in this case. The court concluded that the properties were intended for Nanjappa in his individual capacity, not for his family, and the assessments were rightly made in the individual status. The court's analysis also indicated that Nanjappa had only a limited interest under the will, further supporting the conclusion that the properties were not coparcenary assets.Conclusion:In conclusion, the court answered both questions in the negative and against the assessee, affirming that the will did not constitute a scheme of partition and the properties were not intended for the family but for Nanjappa in his individual capacity. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the will's terms, the testator's intentions, and relevant legal precedents.